Jump to content

Is CaRT fit for purpose?


Midnight

Is CaRT fit for purpose?  

79 members have voted

  1. 1. In your opinion is CaRT fit for purpose?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      57
  2. 2. In your opinion should the CEO, Richard Parry as be replaced?

    • Yes
      56
    • No
      23


Featured Posts

Considering the current mayhem on the waterways with stoppage after stoppage leaving boaters concerned and loosing confidence is it time for action? Let's see what boaters think and at least have some feedback to provide DEFRA when they audit CaRT's performance and record.

  • Greenie 1
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

image.jpeg.aeb674b7aa0e63ec239ecbb9a685ebe1.jpeg

 

 

 

Surely the one who voted 'yes' to the first question made an error, or didn't read the question properly.

Is there really someone on the forum who thinks C&RT are fit for purpose ?

 

 

fit for purpose
  1. (of an institution, facility, etc.) well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Surely the one who voted 'yes' to the first question made an error, or didn't read the question properly.
 

Is there really someone on the forum who thinks C&RT are fit for purpose ?

 

 

1/ People are entitled to their opinion as long as they don't complain when they get caught up in the next major stoppage.

2/ It looks that way

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Midnight said:

.................. at least have some feedback to provide DEFRA when they audit CaRT's performance and record.

 

 

Whilst it is interesting to see the views of boaters who are 'on' the forum, DEFRA cannot and will not be influenced by what a small vocal minority have to say.

 

There are specific measures which were agreed would be KPIs and were included in the legal paperwork when everything was handed over from BW to the new Charity.

 

C&RT do undertake satisfaction surveys, of around 10,000 boaters per annum and, whilst the numbers are declining,  those surveys show that generally the majority of boaters are satisfied with C&RT

 

2016/17 = 76%

2017/18 = 70%

2018/19 = 61%

2019/20 = 67%

 

Vistor satisfaction is also starting to fall

 

2016/17 = 85%

2017/18 = 91%

2018/19 = 92%

2019/20 = 81%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That may depend on what one thinks the purpose of CRT actually is.

 

Many boaters mistakenly think it's to fix our private playground using other people's money ...

It also depends on what you consider fit for purpose to be.  You may think CRT are doing a poor job at the moment, and need to improve their performance, but that does not mean they are not fit for purpose.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

image.jpeg.aeb674b7aa0e63ec239ecbb9a685ebe1.jpeg

 

 

 

Surely the one who voted 'yes' to the first question made an error, or didn't read the question properly.

Is there really someone on the forum who thinks C&RT are fit for purpose ?

 

 

fit for purpose
  1. (of an institution, facility, etc.) well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.

 

Yes but what is CRT's designated role or purpose?  They have multiple roles but I bet everyone here will be concentrating on just one.  They may be seriously failing in some areas but be very successful in others.

Edited by StephenA
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did promise myself to stop contributing to forums but this is a really good question and a matter close to my heart....so I've failed!

 

My thoughts on this is that it's difficult to ask the these questions without asking ourselves what  CRT could be replaced with? I've always been pretty impressed with the front line workers but have questioned whether the continuous 'empire building' is wasting funds.

 

For me, as a CC'er, the biggest issue is to be able to continue to have navigable acccess to the amazing network of canals and rivers here in the UK. Sadly we have watched this decline over the past years due to maintenence issues.

 

I'd like to believe Richard Parry still (?) has the requirements of us boaters high up on the list and is listening to us. At the moment I'm not so sure.

 

CRT has marketed the waterways as a playground for all, not just just boaters. This was quite a clever move financially, but it has made us boaters more in the minority.  Watching this thread with interest.

 

Belated Happier New Year to all. x

  • Greenie 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that C&RT are all you have. The only people who have an actual interest in the water and the canal infrastructure are boater. Walkers, cyclists and fishermen couldn't give a monkey's about the actual canals and locks etc. I only see boaters whinging on this forum and, probably, others which I don't read. I see precious little actual action being taken by boaters and the organisation that originally brought the canals back to life. I'm out of it now I'm glad to say. I'm moving to somewhere that doesn't have any canals worth speaking about.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is CRT fit for purpose? Now there’s a question.

 

In some respects yes, in others no. If I was to be critical,like many large organisations senior management has got to be spot on. Middle management more so. Employees on the ground have to be motivated all the way from the top.

 

Changing patterns of working and procedures are very difficult to manage. Good working relationships down the line are crucial to ensure things are done correctly and to specification.

 

In my experience, as most tasks are contracted out nowadays, contractor management is essential. Most contracts are won on price, low prices, with the intention of cuttings corners during the course of the contract. This is where CRT management have to be at their best. In my view, they are not.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Impossible to answer without an accurate definition of CaRT's role.

Quite.

 

There have always been stoppages too.  They are more publiscised these days and there may be more but it has not just started happening.  How long was Braunston tunnel closed for in the 1980's?

 

The canal network has not suddenly aged and started to fall apart in the last 9 years of CRT's existence either.  There has been a lot of deferred maintenance in the BW days.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, churchward said:

There has been a lot of deferred maintenance in the BW days.

 


Indeed prior to the hand over to C&RT KPMG were commsioned to undertake a report on the curent situation, stability and forecast by when C&RT would be self suffcient with income vs expenditure.

 

KPMG detailed the backlog and stated that 'steady state maintenance had not been achieved in the past, but forceast that under C&RTs management it would worsen for 2 years and them improve as C&RT raised its income levels.

 

It is a 45 page detailed report on how C&RT will increase income and improve maintenance past the 'steady state', unfortunately the situation has worsened year on year since the establishment of C&RT

481210458_Screenshot(295).png.19a4bbe7b93bd2dfbadb8bbab09dde94.png , financial

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the system for purpose- well I think it generally is and there have been many improvements conducted. I notice Stanley Ferry have completed the lock gates at No 1 Lock Diglis.

But as stated there are many aspects of being fit for purpose so the question does need to be refined as to which purposes it is and which purposes it is not.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "fit for purpose" line seems to have started with continuous cruisers moaning about CRT's tracking system  when they git (sometimes wrongly) told they hadn't moved enough.

It's a daft phrase, because it doesn't actually mean anything unless the user defines both terms, which they never do. So you can use the answers to a survey like this to prove any point you like, from arguing that the navigation should largely be closed down and left to walkers, fishermen and nature to  banning fishing competitions and cyclists and concentrating purely on boats.

As for the question about Parry, he'd just be replaced by a bloke from banking that someone went to school with. At least he comes with a history in transport (even if it was trains, as I got into a bit of trouble for pointing out in song!).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT have spent lots of money on two rebrandings in under 10 years, have lost a lot of staff who understood waterway maintenance and have tried to bring the system into the 21st century, by using contractors. Nobody is paid to oversee the wide picture all are looking at their little bit. Towpath renewal paid for by someone else how wonderful but no rings and wall to edge hard surface, what does the boater do who gets something round his prop?  Contractors do only what they are paid for and no more, so if they spot a problem which can be solved in 5 minutes, no its not our job, and CRT don't inspect after to ensure it is done properly. I have found Armco left bent sticking out 3 feet by contractors. I have seen men pointing a wall in sub zero temperatures, when asked they said the computer had scheduled it for today, they knew it would need re doing in better weather, and sure enough they were back 6 months later. Contractor happy CRT had to pay twice. It is not just CRT who seem to have lost common sense and joined up management, it is money men trying to run everything.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

Impossible to answer without an accurate definition of CaRT's role.

 

Well I'm not sure of CRT's latest mission statement, but I think the 'About Us' web page sums up what they think their role is. 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us

 

Quite a strong emphasis on 'wellbeing' for the 'millions' of customers who visit the waterways, maybe not so much the wellbeing of those trying to plan trips on a boat at the moment. ?

 

Edited by Steve Bassplayer
  • Greenie 1
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

 

Well I'm not sure of CRT's latest mission statement, but I think the 'About Us' web page sums up what they think their role is. 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us

 

Quite a strong emphasis on 'wellbeing' for the 'millions' of customers who visit the waterways, maybe not so much the wellbeing of those trying to plan trips on a boat at the moment. ?

 

Wellbeing is a proven benefit of being near water, so that's good, but the millions who benefit are "visitors". The "customers" are the boaters that pay licence fees I would have thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rivelin said:

Wellbeing is a proven benefit of being near water, so that's good, but the millions who benefit are "visitors". The "customers" are the boaters that pay licence fees I would have thought. 

 

FYI

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts

 

I suppose it could be argued that the general public have contributed in tax. Many also appreciate watching the boats and dream of retiring with/on one.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

Many also appreciate watching the boats

 

That's my take on it.  We are the entertainment, CRTs version of Disney's Mickey and Minnie.  There would be a lot less interest for the general public if the boats aren't there and using locks and swing/lift bridges.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

 

That's my take on it.  We are the entertainment, CRTs version of Disney's Mickey and Minnie.  There would be a lot less interest for the general public if the boats aren't there and using locks and swing/lift bridges.

Agreed! We are the background window dressing for the joggers and cyclists to look at.....when I chat to people they seem amazed that we can travel round a good part of England and Wales....most think it's just a couple of miles...and I think CRT wouldn't mind if it just was a couple of miles!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

My thoughts on this is that it's difficult to ask the these questions without asking ourselves what  CRT could be replaced with? 

 

That was my first (and only) reaction.

 

Whoever runs the network needs money. Some public money is better than none, and more public money is better than less.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rivelin said:

Wellbeing is a proven benefit of being near water, so that's good, but the millions who benefit are "visitors". The "customers" are the boaters that pay licence fees I would have thought. 

Yes to a point licence payers are customers but they are not "the" customers or rather the only customers.  The licence fee only provides around 30% of the income/revenue for CRT.  

 

The canal system is a national resource open for everyone to use be they in a boat or not.  This is the main reason I have always believed that the government contribution to the CRT budget must continue as the payment via taxation for the access for all to the canal system is the only fair way that everyone pays a bit towards its upkeep.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, churchward said:

Yes to a point licence payers are customers but they are not "the" customers or rather the only customers.  The licence fee only provides around 30% of the income/revenue for CRT.  

 

The canal system is a national resource open for everyone to use be they in a boat or not.  This is the main reason I have always believed that the government contribution to the CRT budget must continue as the payment via taxation for the access for all to the canal system is the only fair way that everyone pays a bit towards its upkeep.

Boaters are the only user group that pays directly in any meaningful way. Fishermen pay very little by comparison. I’d happily pay £50 more a year if they were banned from canals. We and the wildlife would benefit. 

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.